Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
Well we've had some new entries and suggestions. I think the best so far is the entry from John Lynch of Stranger Fruit (inspired by Glenn Branch inspired by Carrie Sager).
More below the fold!
Expletive deleted has three entries (I helped with the PS a bit).
Carl Baugh
Ray Comfort
And Jonathan Safarti
Hope for Pandora brings us LOL Marcus Ross.
Carrie Sager also brings us LOL DI.
Aaron of Synapostasy brings us another LOL Behe.
And a LOL Hovind
Maggie W sends us another Comfort:
My original Dembski:
And an update
My original Ken Ham
And another idea
My original Gonzalez:
And an ISU sayz no:
If you guys want to make more, leave them in the comments, here's a generator, and instructions on the outline effect.
Tell me which you like best so far.
Update: The latest from John
Three new ones from Dan Harlow.
LOL Behe
LOL Falwell
LOL William Jennings Bryant
Action Skeptics brings us another Hovind.
And I really like their Ted Haggard.
And hopefully I can get ERV's entry to render correctly. If not, go to her site and check it out!
Comments
I got bored - LOL Dembski
Posted by: John Lynch | May 26, 2007 4:41 PM
DONE!
Posted by: ERV | May 26, 2007 5:48 PM
Nice entries. I knew I should've made a Hovind pic or ten. XD
BTW, thanks for photoshopping my pics. I'm too cheap to buy PS.
Posted by: Heathen Dan | May 26, 2007 7:16 PM
"oh noes! who redused my compleksitie?" is my favorite. Har!
Posted by: Vincent Kargatis | May 26, 2007 8:04 PM
Lacking the photos with which to do it, some LOLHovinds:
That picture of him in court: I has tax monies!/Nooo they be stealin mah tax monies!
The picture of him visiting the NCSE office, which I don't think has ever been scanned: DO NOT WANT
Also, I think someone needs to make one with "SHENANIGANS" that can be posted in response to every creo post on the internets. Come on, it would be awesome.
Posted by: Carrie | May 26, 2007 9:10 PM
Here's some more from my humble blog.
Posted by: Akusai | May 27, 2007 12:25 AM
Tell me which you like best so far.
Last LOLDembski for the win!
Posted by: Dustin | May 27, 2007 12:36 AM
Here are three from my blog.
Posted by: Dan Harlow | May 27, 2007 1:47 AM
You mispelled the name of my blog (it's Synapostasy, not Synopstasy), but you got the link right, so I'll forgive you. ;-)
I dig "tenur."
Posted by: Aaron | May 27, 2007 3:10 AM
You know, as entertaining as this is, it's sort of the equivalent of writing graffiti on a toilet door while pinching one off: For a good time, call Ken Ham at 555-1212. Photoshop as substitute for a cheap El Marko.
Not a judgment, just an observation.
Posted by: Ted | May 27, 2007 12:35 PM
For a good time, call Ken Ham at 555-1212.
It is not equivalent in any way. The good people who made the above would be sure to put Ham's real phone number on the stall.
Posted by: Dustin | May 27, 2007 1:51 PM
Oh, sure, laugh now, ID wollopers: your days are numbered! Okay, all days are numbered, so that's not as spooky as I hoped it would have been. You know what's spooky? Non-numbered days, that's what.
Aw, heck, Betaphysics!® will explain it better than I can.
+++
Posted by: mjs | May 27, 2007 3:45 PM
So, why is 99% of molecular biology in contradiction with macroevolution...
why are outdated intermediate links (really the only ones evolutionists could come up with) presented as literal truth in textbooks....
with the discovery of mendelian genetics disproving structural homology, as well as providing a clear disconnect between microevolution and macroevolution, why do you only have wild speculation? (neo-Darwinism, "punctuated equilibrium", etc.)
Posted by: Phillips | May 27, 2007 3:50 PM
Phillips, I'd like to hear why you think that 99% of molecular biology is in contradiction with macroevolution.
While you're at it, I'd like to hear where it is exactly that you insert your demarcation between micro and macro evolution, and why you think that distinction isn't arbitrary and vague.
Posted by: Dustin | May 27, 2007 4:55 PM
Here's a few more lolcreationists
Posted by: Zarquon | May 27, 2007 5:05 PM
My LOLDembski.
Posted by: Dustin | May 27, 2007 5:19 PM
Sorry, Mark! I knew the gif would be a biach to load-- I tried to make it as small as I could :)
I should have left it big, though, cause evidently its too small for Phillips to notice. Do his comments mean Im psychic and can collect the Randi prize, or does this just mean Creationists are painfully predictable and incredibly dense?
Posted by: ERV | May 27, 2007 7:35 PM
I made one of these little do-jobbies myself, here it is.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 27, 2007 8:19 PM
So, why is 99% of molecular biology in contradiction with macroevolution...
What is your definition of "macroevolution"? Why do you think that molecular biology is in contradiction to it? Give examples.
why are outdated intermediate links
What do you mean by "outdated"? Which "links" are "outdated"? Why do you think they are outdated?
mendelian genetics disproving structural homology
Why do you think that genetics disproves structural homology? Give examples.
clear disconnect between microevolution and macroevolution
What are your definitions for micro and macro evolution? Where is the disconnect between them? What genetic mechanism do you posit for this disconnect? Provide evidence for the last, please.
neo-Darwinism, "punctuated equilibrium
What don't you undertsand about "neo-Darwinism" (aka "the modern synthesis")? What don't you understand about punk eek? Perhaps we can help you out there.
Posted by: Graculus | May 27, 2007 9:39 PM
Graculus,
Nice. You beat me to it.
-F.
Posted by: factician | May 27, 2007 11:13 PM
99 of molecular biology (% differences of amino acid structures from one species to another) doesn't show that the complex evolved from the simple.
Micro is adaptation, or differentiation withing a species, perhaps to create another species (e.g. another type of chichlid) but in which the genetic neither changes nor is added to, alleles are just expressed differently.
An example of a link that has been disproven is the horse model...it's still presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook, even though they found out that the horse heads and legs weren't in chronological order from smallest to largest in the strata, and some were in the same layer.
Structural homology...we now know that different creatures are identified with specifically different genes...
And the last two revisions (suddenly there was a ton of chemcials that made a ton of mutations and then made a ton of die-outs) are still wild speculation.
Posted by: Phillips | May 28, 2007 12:04 PM
99 of molecular biology (% differences of amino acid structures from one species to another) doesn't show that the complex evolved from the simple.
Micro is adaptation, or differentiation withing a species, perhaps to create another species (e.g. another type of chichlid) but in which the genetic neither changes nor is added to, alleles are just expressed differently.
An example of a link that has been disproven is the horse model...it's still presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook, even though they found out that the horse heads and legs weren't in chronological order from smallest to largest in the strata, and some were in the same layer.
Structural homology...we now know that different creatures are identified with specifically different genes...
And the last two revisions (suddenly there was a ton of chemcials that made a ton of mutations and then made a ton of die-outs) are still wild speculation.
Posted by: Phillips | May 28, 2007 12:06 PM
Surprise, surprise. Phillips is citing a long debunked creationist claim to support his argument.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 28, 2007 2:27 PM
I can't distinguish Phillips' elaboration from his original post. Way to say nothing new.
Killfile powers, activate!
Posted by: Dustin | May 28, 2007 4:36 PM
Hmmm, troll feeding. It's ill-advised. He's also defending Paul Cameron, crank and weirdo denialist hack extraordinaire back on the denialists part III post.
Posted by: MarkH | May 28, 2007 5:43 PM
"Surprise, surprise. Phillips is citing a long debunked creationist claim to support his argument."
'Gradual' change? We're not even talking gradual...the largest head and legs were in strata BELOW the smallest ones.
"I admit that an awful lot of [disproved 'evidence'] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in his museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable..." (Darwin's enigama: Fossils and Other Problems)
Posted by: Phillips | May 28, 2007 8:14 PM
'Gradual' change? We're not even talking gradual...the largest head and legs were in strata BELOW the smallest ones.
Yeah, and? Horse evolution isn't a straight line, it is a tree. There is no goal, no predestined direction.
"I admit that an awful lot of [disproved 'evidence'] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in his museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable..." (Darwin's enigama: Fossils and Other Problems)
Yep, 120 years ago it was thought that progress existed in evolution, and that horse evolution was a pole rather than a tree. That was wrong, and it is in fact lamentable that it's still presented that way in many textbooks. How that creates a problem for evolutionary biology, however, I have yet to see.
BTW, I study molecular biology. I can confirm the quote by Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." Intelligent design? Give me a break. If anyone designed that mess, they must have been very stupid. Evolution, on the other hand, explains it beautifully. Ever marveled at the similarities between your tubulins and the FtsZ of a bacterium or archaeon, for example?
Species are fuzzy affairs; drawing a distinction between micro- and macroevolution is impossible.
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 28, 2007 9:02 PM
Don't you see what you're doing? Whenever an idea is disproved, you simply revise it, putting it out the scope of testable science. You call that science, but when there is no evidence to support your suppositions, you're getting no where but wild speculation, a hypothesis. Evolution never left that stage.
Posted by: Phillips | May 28, 2007 10:24 PM
Whenever an idea is disproved, you simply revise it...
Can I nominate this for most hilarious quote of the day?
Posted by: Davis | May 29, 2007 2:59 AM
(Operating on the Pharyngula rule: "three posts before breaking out the clue by four")
Phillips, if you want to be engaged seriously, please answer the questions.
Let's try it a few digestable pieces at a time.
What are your definitions "micro" and "macro" evolution? You have already indicated that speciation is "micro", so where is the line, and what is the proposed mechanism that prevents accumulated "micro" from producing "macro" evolution, again, using your definitions. Please provede examples or cites from peer reviewed literature for this prosposed mechanism.
genetic neither changes nor is added to, alleles are just expressed differently.
OK, so there is no such thing as mutation or duplication etc. How does genetic novelty arise then? Please describe the mechanism, with cites in peer reviewed literature and/or examples.
Posted by: Graculus | May 29, 2007 12:28 PM
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/576/csispamum8.jpg
this one's for you, JAD!
Posted by: Rich | May 29, 2007 2:39 PM
Ha, I'm not going to provide sources for commons terms, my friend. You know as well as I do that in order for macroevolution to occur there would have had to be all of a sudden millions of mutations, and presuming there were a few "beneficial" mutations, a new kind of creature was created, i.e. the genetic code was altered in such a way. This all of course, according to "punctuated eqilibrium", due to a bunch of chemicals that suddenly appeared. And thus you get by on the clear disconnect between this "theory" and the lack of evidence in the fossil record, admitted by Darwin himself...
Wild speculation does not = theory.
Posted by: Phillips | June 1, 2007 7:02 PM
Macro vs. Micro? I've been led to believe that micro is between breeds, and macro between species.
Are Foxes and Wolves different breeds, or species?
How about the closely related badger?
How about bobcats vs. cougars?
Horses and donkeys?
Please precisely define the difference between "breed" and "species" in terms of genetics, and then we can address the Creationist separation of evolution into "macro" vs. "micro".
What about the slippery Noah's Ark "kinds"? This seems to be a bigger grouping than species, implying that all the species of a "kind" evolved in the time since Noah.
What about marsupials? There is no mention of any marsupial in the Bible. No evidence of any marsupial has ever been found anywhere in reach of the authors of the Bible. Where did they come from? If Noah had them, why is there no evidence of any of them ever having been within 1000 miles of Noah? If Noah didn't have them, how did they survive the flood?
Posted by: Dan Klarmann | June 5, 2007 6:31 PM
Dan, you know damn well kangaroos can swim. They keep a floatation device inside their pouch for such emergencies (like great floods and airline crash-landings).
Posted by: Scholar | June 5, 2007 8:15 PM
""Ever marveled at the similarities between your tubulins and the FtsZ of a bacterium or archaeon, for example?""
No, I can't say I have...
Posted by: Rick | June 6, 2007 7:22 AM
Micro-evolution is evolution among species, speciation. The finch is not a species, but each kind of finch is it's own species. Same as dogs. Dog is not a species, the different types of dogs are their own species. They are identified as dogs however because they have the same genetic makeup, the same genetic code (well, and because they just look like dogs). The species of dogs are differentiated by which alleles are expressed within that genetic code.
As for marsupials, what do you mean "withing 1000 miles of Noah". Have you discovered where teh ark landed? Others have too, in more than one place. 95% of fossils are clams anyway.
Posted by: Phillips | June 7, 2007 5:09 PM
All dogs are canus canus. There are breeds of dogs but they are all the same species. An easy way to remember - members of the same species can reproduce to make healthy fertile offspring.
I'm not exactly convinced by the arguments of a guy who thinks each breed of dog is its own species. And Noah would need to have the marsupials, and penguins, and lambs, and sloths, and elephants, and kangaroo, etc., all in one place to load them on the boat and to let them off. Where he started or landed doesn't matter, geographically it's a feat that makes no sense.
Posted by: MarkH | June 7, 2007 5:24 PM
I was of the impression that species were determined by breeding habits, e.g. dachsunds with dachsunds, dalmations with dalmations. Either way, the main thing is the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the latter which would require the genetic code to be altered.
and sure it makes sense, who knows how long it took them to get the animals, but I don't see what your problem is.
Posted by: Phillips | June 10, 2007 4:52 PM
I was of the impression that species were determined by breeding habits, e.g. dachsunds with dachsunds, dalmations with dalmations.
Have you ever seen a dog? Or owned one that wasn't neutered?
Really, this type of just plain absence of knowledge is a bit frightening.
Do you get your knowledge of animal husbandry from Disney movies or something?
Posted by: MarkH | June 10, 2007 5:22 PM
Alright, Mark, you know as well as I do that the definition of "species" is subjective. Many scientists can't even agree on one.
You're side-tracking anyway.
Posted by: Phillips | June 11, 2007 1:59 PM
Hey, why didn't I notice right away how Behe holds that Gilson pipette? He acts as if he had never seen one before.
There are at least 25 different definitions of "species" out there because species change all the time. They split, and sometimes they merge (under most definitions).
95 % of all fossils is nannoplankton, forams, radiolaria, and diatoms... we can watch evolution (including speciation) in their fossil record.
""Ever marveled at the similarities between your tubulins and the FtsZ of a bacterium or archaeon, for example?""
No, I can't say I have...
Then I recommend any university library and the book "Molecular Biology of the Cell" written by a large number of authors the first of whom is a certain Alberts.
The species of dogs are differentiated by which alleles are expressed within that genetic code.
This shows you don't know what "allele" means. Wikipedia is your friend.
Ha, I'm not going to provide sources for commons terms, my friend.
Sure you are -- because everyone uses those terms differently, and most evolutionary biologists don't use them at all.
You know as well as I do that in order for macroevolution to occur there would have had to be all of a sudden millions of mutations
If so, macroevolution has never happened -- and is not necessary to explain anything.
and presuming there were a few "beneficial" mutations
Whether a mutation is beneficial depends on the environment. As a drastic example take sickle cell anemia.
a new kind of creature was created, i.e. the genetic code was altered in such a way.
How many mutations in a genome (not the genetic code!) are necessary for "a new kind" in your opinion?
This all of course, according to "punctuated eqilibrium", due to a bunch of chemicals that suddenly appeared.
This shows you don't know what punctuated equilibrium means. Punk eek is the theory that species arise from small founder populations that undergo more changes per time than usual because they are subject to less stabilizing selection than usual.
And thus you get by on the clear disconnect between this "theory" and the lack of evidence in the fossil record, admitted by Darwin himself...
Yeah. And just a year before publication Archaeopteryx was discovered. Don't act as if zero fossils had been found in the last 150 years! We are swimming in transitional forms today. Origin of birds? Origin of mammals? Origin of tetrapods? Origin of arthropods? Origin of mollusks? Origin of annelids? We have impressive transition series (not one single "transitional form") for all of these and lots more.
Phillips, you have confused ignorance and knowledge. Stop making arguments based on your lack of knowledge.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 11, 2007 5:44 PM
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." (Field Museum Bulletin January, 1979)
We now know that the Archaeotrix was a bird, an extinct bird, just like the dodo bird. Now, what were those transitional fossils by the way? (note: 95% of fossils are actually clams; without a great flood, I wonder how all those clams got on land.)
I didn't find your other comments worth responding to.
Posted by: Phillips | June 12, 2007 2:33 PM
*archaeopteryx*
By the way, sickle cell anemia is most certainly a drastic example, it's the closest mutation you folks can come with as labeling as "beneficial"! Nevermind that it reduces oxygen efficieny within the blood, and that the median age of death for both males and females is in the 40s.
Posted by: Phillips | June 12, 2007 2:42 PM
Evolution is established science, and Creationists are intellectual fringe dwellers.
Having said that, this thread is puerile, childish, stupid, and looks like it was conjured straight out of the Digg hive-mind.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2007 2:49 PM
Denialist!
Posted by: Phillips | June 12, 2007 3:13 PM
"note: 95% of fossils are actually clams; without a great flood, I wonder how all those clams got on land."
:/
you think land masses just appear out of nowhere, fully formed, and float around disconnected on top of the sea?
Posted by: wolf mechanics | June 19, 2007 7:12 AM
Phillips wrote:
...And thus you get by on the clear disconnect between this "theory" and the lack of evidence in the fossil record, admitted by Darwin himself
Darwin was complaining about the lack of numerous gradations between species. There are certainly gradations between species --it's just, not every single step is available.
As Darwin points out, the fossil record provides solid evidence for evolution. Even before all those intermediate species we know today were unearthed.
The Origin of Species, chapter 10, "On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings"
When we examine the fossil record, we see:
1. Species are continuously created. But these new species appear only slowly. This is what is expected under evolution by natural selection.
2. Some species persist through the geological record; others go extinct, as expected under the theory of natural selection. [this argues against theories of successive, regular, extinction and creation]
3. Throughout the fossil record, new species resemble immediately prior species. This is precisely what is required by the theory of evolution by natural selection.
4. The more ancient a species, the more different, in general, it is. This is, again, what evolution by natural selection predicts. Change is cumulative; and natural selection doesn't allow species to retrace their decent.
5. The more ancient a species, the more "intermediate" it is. i.e., ancient species tend to fall between distinct groups of modern species. The more ancient the species, the more distinct modern groups it links. The totality of fossil species blends the distinct genuses we have today. -- once again, totally consistent with evolution by natural selection. The fossil record here tells us that modern species are all descended from a common ancestor.
6. Once a species disappears from the fossil record, it does not reappear -- as expected by the theory of evolution by natural selection
7. When we consider groups of species that closely resemble each other (genuses, families) their existence in the fossil record is continuous. This is necessary if species arise via evolution. If the group goes extinct, under the theory of natural selection, no new species belonging that group can ever again emerge.
8. When a new group of species appears in the fossil record, in general, there are initially only a few species representing the group. Gradually the number of species increases. This is explicable under evolution by natural selection. If species were created by some other means, why don't we see a group filled with numerous species appear all at once?
9. Lastly, and most tellingly: the fauna of each continent tends to be distinct from other continents. But the most recent fossil beds of each continent comprise species which closely resemble those living there today.
Read the chapter. Read the book.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 19, 2007 10:41 AM
The comment about sickle-cell anemia is that whether the gene is beneficial or harmful depends on the environment!
If you have one copy of the sickle-cell gene, it causes no harm to yourself (although you have the risk of offspring having sickle-cell anemia if you have children with another person who carries the gene). HOWEVER, you possess a resistance to malaria. If you live in an environment with a large amount of malaria, then that benefit outweighs the harm of having children with sickle-cell anemia. And, indeed, we find that, in populations that have lived for long periods of time in the same area, the higher the rate of malaria, the higher the incidence of sick-cell anemia genes.
Posted by: Paper Hand | July 14, 2008 6:54 PM
Wow, so Anyonymous apparently believes sciencey-types cant haz sensiz uv hyoomur.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 14, 2008 7:16 PM
The good people who made the above would be sure to put Ham's real phone number on the stall.
What a wonderfully diabolical idea! Can't wait to try it. After all, what is it they say?
"Lead me not into temptation. I can find it myself."
Posted by: themadlolscientist | July 16, 2008 12:21 AM
Hi. I didn't find your other comments worth responding to.
Posted by: us drugstore | October 1, 2009 7:55 AM